Wednesday, June 19, 2013

Se Ofendendo: Some Thoughts on Suicide from Robert Frost's "Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening"


It must be se ofendendo. It cannot be else. - Hamlet, Act V/Scene 1

Gravedigger Number One, like a lot of preachers who like to spout about "the original Greek," has heard just enough Latin to be dangerous. His job involves hanging around at inquests and such waiting to be told where to stow the corpse but he mistakenly believes this amounts to a formal education in the law. So in discussing the death of Ophelia, he garbles his terms: One person could legally kill another se defendendo, in self-defense. But the goodman delver coins a new term, "self-offense." The irony, of course, is that he's probably blundered onto the truth: Hamlet's erstwhile love interest seems to have committed suicide.
That idea brings me to Robert Frost's little poem, "Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening." Bob Dylan dubs Archibald MacLeish, Carl Sandburg, and Robert Frost "the Yeats, Browning and Shelley of the New World." I've heard people call Dylan the American Keats, so who knows? What I do know is that Frost's poems are always about simple farming matters, and yet never about simple farming matters. Dylan tags Frost as "the poet of dark meditations," and I'm with him on that.
"Woods" is a case in point of both these things: everyday incidents as windows to deeper truths, and crepuscular ponderings. To begin with, let's put the poem in front of us:

Whose woods these are, I think I know.
His house is in the village, though;
He will not see me stopping here
To watch his woods fill up with snow.

The little horse must think it queer
To stop without a farmhouse near
Between the woods and frozen lake
The darkest evening of the year.

He gives his harness bells a shake
To ask if there is some mistake.
The only other sound's the sweep
Of easy wind on downy flake.

The woods are beautiful, dark and deep.
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep.

Simple enough, yes? A benighted traveler pauses to take in the snowscape before moving on with whatever errand sent him into the forest in the first place. But clearly there is much more at work here.
Structurally the most important thing about the poem is the "chain rhyme," where the first, second, and final lines of each stanza rhyme, while the third ends in a different sound, which in turn becomes the rhyming sound for the next stanza. Then notice what happens at the end: All four lines conform to the rhyming sound of the previous stanza and the last two lines repeat. Thus Frost's structure pulls the reader through the poem, refusing, like "the little horse" (we'll get to him in a minute) to let us linger too long at any one point. Then the repeating lines sew the whole thing up neatly, like the feeling of throwing the car into park as our tires crunch on the gravel of our driveway at home.
Now ponder the imagery for a moment: Someone owns the woods, though he goes unnamed and we don't ever meet him. "His house is in the village," and he isn't watching at the moment. (Note: Frost hints at the subtle difference between getting away with something and actually having permission to do it.) Observe also that of the three masculine singular pronouns that designate this Someone, two come at the beginning of lines and are thus capitalized. Can you think of Someone who 1) owns nature and 2) often goes by a capitalized third-person masculine pronoun?
We're talking about God here, but a specific understanding of God: The one "whose house is in the village," the God who lives in the church building amidst the tamed right-angles of avenues and boulevards and the illumination of street lamps. This God owns nature but acts as an absentee landlord who doesn't even keep an eye on the place, let alone occupy it. All of this, don't forget, on "the darkest evening of the year," the Winter Solstice when, in many ancient religions, the sun god was dying and had to be revived by the rituals his followers carried out in the temple.
So the narrator stares into the cold but beautiful void where God is but isn't. On the literal level, if he stays there too long he will freeze to death. But that is, by all accounts, a consummation devoutly to be wished: One grows warm and sleepy and simply slips away. As J. R. R. Tolkien's character Frodo lies snowbound on the slopes of Caradhras, "a great sleepiness came over (him); he felt himself sinking fast into a warm and hazy dream. He thought a fire was heating his toes. . . ."
Not suicide, exactly, in either example. More of a sort of letting go and giving in. Still, that may be only a passive, and thus worse, form of the same despair. It reminds me of Nathaniel Hawthorne's depiction of the Reverend Arthur Dimmesdale staggering through the same sort of primeval New England forest as Frost's narrator:
"There was a listlessness in his gait; as if he saw no reason for taking one step farther, nor felt any desire to do so but would have been glad, could he be glad of anything, to fling himself down at the root of the nearest tree, and lie there passive, for evermore. The leaves might bestrew him, and the soil gradually accumulate and form a little hillock over his frame, no matter whether there were life in it or no. Death was too definite an object to be wished or avoided."
Been there? No? Good for you. But let not him that girdeth on his harness boast like him that taketh it off. I personally remember, one Saturday afternoon, slumping on the sidewalk, my back to the side wall of a Barnes & Noble, trying to think of a good reason ever to get up again. The woods are beautiful but also dark - they offer obscurity - and deep - they offer seclusion. The grave's a fine and private place. The narrator has, indeed, stopped for death, and half-hopes that death might meet him halfway.
And then the little horse trots to the rescue. Notice that this modest equine occupies two of the four stanzas, and the central ones at that. Its presence anchors the more metaphysical issues on either side. The beast is the body: Francis of Assisi called the body Brother Ass. C. S. Lewis finds this metaphor appropriate, since each of them is "a useful, sturdy, lazy, obstinate, patient, lovable and infuriating beast. . . .both pathetically absurd and beautiful." Brother Ass, or at any rate Brother Pony, speaks here for the flesh. Horses do not, Swift's houyhnhnms to one side, go in for metaphysics. The animal is cold and hungry and, I suspect, bothered by this interruption in its well-worn routine. The jangling harness bells could stand for things like hunger pains, sore muscles, and engrained habits that bring us back to the humble goodness of being embodied.
They do, at any rate, awaken the speaker to his "promises to keep," a recollection which in the end proves decisive. I can see him sigh, take the reins, whip up the little pony and roll, snow crunching beneath his wheels, toward what lies ahead.
As a meditation on overcoming the seduction of death the poem is not idle. According to the Centers for Disease Control suicide outranks automobile accidents as a cause of death. It beats homicide: We kill ourselves more often than we kill each other. As the Baby Boom generation grays, suicide, normally the province of teens and seniors, has spiked among the middle aged.
Frost's poem offers nothing in the way of religious reasons against suicide. The Everlasting may, as Hamlet declares, have fixed his canon 'gainst self-slaughter, but in the God-haunted but God-abandoned wood of modernity, this doesn't count for much. The ultimate reasons are the immediate demands of one's flesh and the web of relationships, the "promises to keep," which tie us to the community of the living. Ultimately inadequate reasons, perhaps, but good enough to be getting on with.
Interestingly enough, G. K. Chesterton offers something like the same argument against se ofendendo. "Suicide," he explains, "is the ultimate and absolute evil, the refusal to take an interest in existence; the refusal to take the oath of loyalty to life." The suicide sneers not only at himself, but the innocent little horse, the wood, the lake, and the village. 
This is good to remember on those days when God seems distant. (God is not, in fact, and while  for many of us our faith tells us this truth, the history of the faithful, starting with Our Lord, tells us it will often feel that way.) Sometimes the jangling bells of our needy bodies and the linked rhyme of the next small task are all that pulls us forward into life's poem until, at last, the great Poet wraps up the final stanza with the kept promise that will ring through eternity.


Saturday, June 15, 2013

A Poor Thing But Mine Own: A Plea for the Writing of One's Own Sermons


Thus does Touchstone, one of Shakespeare's richest fool-characters, introduce his redneck bride to a company of courtiers. Audrey is none too bright and her posture is bad ("Bear your body more seeming, Audrey"), she's no Rosalind certainly nor even a Celia, but then Touchstone is no Orlando and standup comedians working the circuit have to take what they can. 

I have often taken comfort from Touchstone as I sit on some church platform just as the special music draws to a close and ponder the message I am about to offer. "A poor virgin, sir": I seldom re-preach sermons, though I don't see anything wrong with doing so. "An ill-favoured thing, sir": lumpish sentences, sprawling points from which stragglers escape like loose sheets that fall out of a manila folder before we can get to the filing cabinet. "But mine own": As one old preacher put it, I am not about to offer to God or God's people what cost me nothing. 

I find myself increasingly in the minority on the point of preaching one's own sermons. Mega-pulpiteers now market their products for convenient download, complete with PowerPoint slides and scripts for supporting dramas. Pastors I know sell entire series, for a fee, to any nascent David determined to fight in Saul's armor. One popular book on how to jolt a mediocre mezzo-church into mutant megadom even counsels ecclesiastical entrepreneurs to preach re-treads for the first year of the venture. The "leader," it appears, will be too busy casting visions and, I guess, designing T-shirts, to bother with mucking about in Sacred Writ. 

I don't suppose I can be too absolute here. After all, these guys don't "steal" their sermons any more than I steal bananas when I schlep to the grocery store: They didn't grow the messages and I didn't grow the bananas, and we can both produce receipts to prove we are honest people. I know I am the voice of a fading generation, but I'm riding into the sunset perched backwards in the saddle. From that perspective, allow me to speak a word on behalf of the antique (I prefer the term "ancient") practice of preaching one's own sermons.

The Myth of Originality

There are at least three things I don't mean when I call for pastors to preach their own sermons: legalism, novelty, and individualism.

As to legalism, I wouldn't say that it is never right to use someone else's stuff. My dad used to call it "beating a guy shooting his own guns." I'm not certain how appropriate gunslinger imagery is for the pulpit but you'd have to know my dad. I think that there are times when humility demands that we let the Lord give us a message that we could never have come up with on our own. But there are better and worse ways of doing this.

"But for your bread of this day, I go gleaning openly in other men's fields -- fields into which I could not have found my way, in time at least for your necessities, and where I could not have gathered such full ears of wheat, barley, and oats but for the more than assistance of the same friend who warned me of the wrong I was doing both you and myself. Right ancient fields are some of them, where yet the ears lie thick for the gleaner. To continue my metaphor: I will lay each handful before you with the name of the field where I gathered it; and together they will serve to show what some of the wisest and best shepherds of the English flock have believed concerning the duty of confessing our faults."

Thus the Reverend Thomas Wingfold, protagonist of George MacDonald's novel The Curate's Awakening, confesses to his flock one Sunday morning. If you're going to preach someone else's stuff, this is the way to do it. The Reverend Tom not only admits to offering his flock second-hand fodder; he even confesses that a friend has supplied him with the borrowed bits. Further, he makes sure to swipe the best, not the latest, and promises to footnote every quotation. 

Then there's novelty. I wouldn't want anyone to understand me as saying that a sermon should be completely original. A professor in seminary once told us, "If you ever have a completely original theological insight, it will probably be a heresy." He was wrong: Even all the good heresies have been taken. How can we preach the faith once for all delivered to the saints if we keep chasing after fads? Really, the problem with a lot of the purchased preaching on offer these days is that it has grown bored with repeating the same old thing (you know - the Trinity, the cross, resurrection, stuff like that; "seekers," we all know, don't want to hear theology) and instead backloaded the latest intellectual and social fads onto the Bible. When this happens, the latest best-sellers in the business section become a sort of rotating Evangelical apocrypha.

Finally, we come to individualism. I do not want to be taken to mean that the preacher should not use any sources outside her own capacious noggin. No sermon will ever be (or at least, let us hope we never have to hear one that is) "original" in that sense. Leaving the Holy Spirit aside for a moment (never a very good idea), any sermon we preach should probably bear a preface quoting President Barack Obama: "You didn't build that!" Insights from commentaries, light shed by sermons and Sunday school lessons heard throughout our lives, input from friends with whom we discuss the text: All of these are fair game and to reject them would be like Elijah telling the angel "No thanks" to the desert fast-food because he wouldn't take charity. 

Magic Cloth and Bent Work

It's a little harder to say exactly what I do mean - or exactly why. And remember my title: This is not so much an argument as a plea. Despite all the logic some can muster in favor of preaching purchased sermons, I remain convinced that we do better to offer our own ill-favoured things.  Where syllogisms fail me, I often turn to narrative. Let me try that.

Near the end of J. R. R. Tolkien's The Fellowship of the Ring, as the eight companions prepare to leave the elven land of Lorien, their hosts present them with custom-made traveling cloaks. "Are these magic cloaks?" asks Pippin, one of the hobbits. "I do not know what you mean by that," says the leader. "They are fair garments, and the web is good, for it was made in this land." He adds only that the coats contain "the hue and beauty of all these things under the twilight of Lorien that we love; for we put the thought of all that we love into all that we make."

We put the thought of all that we love into all that we make. That sentence says something about the alchemy of sermon preparation. Alchemy may be the right word, because that discredited field of study briefly bridged the world of magic and science, a combination of bat's eyes and reproducible results that hoped somehow to transmute lead to gold. Something happens when a preacher loves a congregation, and thus loves a sermon, and loves both even as the sermon bubbles in double toil and trouble on the cauldron of a desk. And no one else can do that for me, because no one else can love this text and this people at this moment with quite the same flame, the one that boils joy and doubt and fear and frustration and triumph into a single substance that, on a good Sunday, shows flecks of gold amidst the baser matter. It is not a magic sermon; it probably shouldn't be. But if it is fair and well-woven and made in the same place where it is preached, maybe it will warm the shivering of some soul who sits beneath it.

Tolkien's pal, C. S. Lewis, in his space novel Out of the Silent Planet, imagines a conversation between an earthling and a craftsman on the planet Malacandria. Ransom, the human, asks his acquaintance how they determine who must dig gold and gems from the mines and who gets to fashion it into beautiful objects. "All keep the mines open," replies the puzzled alien. "It is a work to be shared. But each digs for himself the thing he wants for his work." Ransom briefly explains the concept of division of labor that prevails on our planet. "Then you must make very bent work," scoffs the other. "How would a maker understand working in sun's blood (gold) unless he went into the home of sun's blood himself and knew one kind from another and lived with it for days out of the light of the sky till it was in his blood and his hearts, as if he thought it and ate it and spat it."

"A maker" - that probably gets to the heart of my passion. In an age that regards a sermon as a tool, I persist in seeing it as a thing made, a poema in Greek, the root of our word "poem." Not that we should become impressed with our own oratory; Spurgeon once said it is better to offer your folks a chunk of beef chopped off anyhow than to give them, on a bone China plate, a delicately carved slice of nothing! But for me a sermon is not, or not quite, the same thing as the instructions that come with my new computer: simply the conveyance of information. It is gold, quite literally, Son's Blood, though perhaps poorly refined and choked with chaff. And my work will be very bent if I do not delve deep into the individual text where that particular revelation of Son's Blood resides, and know that the Spirit speaks of Christ differently in this place than in any other, and live with it for days shut up in my study until it is in my heart, until I think it eat it so deeply that, though I do nothing more than splatter and splutter on Sunday, I spit gold with every word. 

I don't imagine I'll change anybody's mind, and that's all right because as far as I can tell I will never have to answer before the judgment seat for someone else's sermons. (And I'll have enough trouble answering for my own.) But perhaps I can offer some encouragement to those who even today find themselves tangled between the warp and woof of text and people, dug deep into a vein that may prove to be fool's gold: Keep working. Offer them a poor thing, but your own.


Thursday, June 13, 2013

Hurry Up and Slow Down

I read the newspaper almost every day. Sorry, C. S. Lewis.

Lewis hated newspapers, did not read them, and believed they contained false information on frivolous topics, all of it badly written. He was probably right (he usually was), and the following meditation may offer evidence to that end. Still, from my flutter-by sipping from the garish flowers of the New York Times' daily bouquet, I offer the following.

Two articles caught my attention yesterday. In one, scientists using sophisticated tracking collars have determined that 1) yes, the cheetah is the fastest land animal in existence, capable of speeds in excess of fifty miles per hour (just marginally faster than a teenager answering a text message), and 2) this is not really the secret of the big cat's high success rate. Instead, they say, it is the fleet feline's ability to slow down that accounts for most of its kills. A cheetah can decelerate by nine miles per hour in a single stride, and has an unusually flexible spine. These combined traits allow the mighty carnivore to spin nimbly in response to the evasive maneuvers of its prey. (Read more here. This blog is not responsible for  hauntings by the ghost of C. S. Lewis.)


In the other article, physician Abigail Zuger dares her fellow healers to do nothing, yet continue to treat the patient. (Read more here.) She distinguishes this from the "final nothing" of admitting to a patient that the doctor has exhausted treatment options. Instead, the challenge is "to stop doing anything. . .for a while but pass her the tissues" In other words, remain present, remain inactive, remain, well, darn it, just remain.

I think the combination of these two articles has some interesting implications for pastoral ministry. We live in a time when the ministry model for American Evangelicalism (my own particular ghetto of the Church; and yes, it is a neighborhood, not the whole city) prizes speed. Sometimes, though, I think the real trick is the ability to slow down, the gift of decelerating in a single stride without snapping my purpose-stiffened, purpose-driven spine. The Spirit is a breeze who blows where He will, graceful as a gazelle on the run. Perhaps the best means to our end in such a safari is a highly developed ability to slow down and change directions. Perhaps, just perhaps, the real measure of power is not how fast we can go from zero to sixty, but from sixty to zero.

Which brings me to Dr. Zuger, who goes Dr. Doolittle one better to urge those of us who undertake the cure of souls to become Dr. Do Nothing. Or, as Zuger ultimately phrases is, "Do No-Thing." Because no-thing means no tangible action, a stillness that makes room for plenty to happen. Without our the patented pills of our favorite texts, the magic elixir of our theological nostrums; without the sense of power and usefulness and worldly respectability that comes from knowing what to say or whom to call; with nothing. . . can we sit with the suffering Christ in the form of the sufferer before us for one hour? Ever notice how often Jesus talks to people before healing them? The Syro-Phoenecian woman, the man at the pool of Bethesda, blind Bartimaeus at Jericho. He's the do-nothing Messiah who doodles in the dust during a cross-examination by the Supreme Court. 

So let's learn today from the cheetah and the physician: Slow down in a hurry so you can sit with someone in need and go nowhere fast. Sometimes the shortest distance between two points isn't any kind of line, but another point.

 .